Think on this

[Nightshade]

Ok Ill say it from the start not sure if this should be here or philosphy but since I started thinking of it in a sort of religious context Ill put it in here ( though it should probably get moved).
Anyway.
Here is my rather convaluted question(s) I'll split it into parts it might make it more understandable.
1) Do people ever do somthing unless they feel they are justified/in the right?2) Is right and wrong subjective or objective?
3) and in that case How can thier even be a right or wrong??

Just me wondering but if anyone has an opion or even better FACTS Id be happy to hear them...only please to cut and paste masses because I get bored and switch off:blush: paraphrasing is the key!:D

[AimusSage]

Simple answer: It's all in your head.

How's that for keeping it short? :D

[Nightshade]

depends what you mean by all :D

[Shield&Sword]

:blush: didnt get your q night, because of my weak eng.

[Virgil]

Ok Ill say it from the start not sure if this should be here or philosphy but since I started thinking of it in a sort of religious context Ill put it in here ( though it should probably get moved).
Anyway.
Here is my rather convaluted question(s) I'll split it into parts it might make it more understandable.
1) Do people ever do somthing unless they feel they are justified/in the right?2) Is right and wrong subjective or objective?
3) and in that case How can thier even be a right or wrong??

Just me wondering but if anyone has an opion or even better FACTS Id be happy to hear them...only please to cut and paste masses because I get bored and switch off:blush: paraphrasing is the key!:D

Night, are you asking, is everything relative? Is right and wrong relative?

[Whifflingpin]

I think Night is going beyond the "relative" question. She appears to be asking if the concept of right and wrong has any validity.

"Everyone believes he is right; no-one, therefore can judge what is right or wrong. Therefore "right and wrong" are meaningless words (ethically/morally speaking.)" True or false?

[Whifflingpin]

Having restated the question, I'll ramble about it.

Individuals frequently make choices, weighing up what they consider to be right or wrong courses of action - so "right and wrong" are at least practical ideas, even if there is no philosophical basis for them.

Two people may have diametrically opposed views on what is right or wrong, in a given situation. Since each thinks he is right, is there any objective way to judge between them? If yes, why would the "wrong" one think he is right? If no, how can we say that something is right or wrong? (dammit, that has just asked the same question again)

OK - what I want is right.

or - what the most powerful person wants is right.

Both of the above ideas sound horrible, but they are probably the most generally used criteria. (Democracy is just an example of the second.)

Sometimes people cite supposedly objective criteria, e.g. God or scriptures or Natural Law, but these are usually justifications for one or other of the above ideas, (the first if you are not powerful, the second if you are powerful)

I'm becoming cynical, so I'll stop - that's right!

[Nightshade]

I think Night is going beyond the "relative" question. She appears to be asking if the concept of right and wrong has any validity.

"Everyone believes he is right; no-one, therefore can judge what is right or wrong. Therefore "right and wrong" are meaningless words (ethically/morally speaking.)" True or false?

Bingo ! Thats what I wanted to say.
And actually everything else he said too.

[cuppajoe_9]

"There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue, there's just things people do. There's some things I wish they wouldn't do and some things I wish they'd do a bit more, but that's all any man's got a right to say."
-Steinbeck

Man, I'm glad I memorized that quote.

[Thinker]

Society has it printed on paper what is right, what is wrong.

Society isn't based off of morals either. Obviously if they were, the world would be a crazy planet to settle down on. The answer has to be their is no right or wrong. A right to one person could be a wrong to another.
Example: Sex before marriage

So, it all revolves around your morals. I believe that society is the main problem, and I can understand these Transcendentalists a little better now.

[kilted exile]

It's all shades of grey

[Whifflingpin]

Hmmm - second bite at the apple.

In matters that affect me directly, I am not a reliable judge of right and wrong.

In other matters, however, I still judge right and wrong, and my view is more objective - so, is it based on some standard that would be accepted by people unbiassed by self-interest.

The example that occurred to me is the question of modern slavery. Various forms of slavery are prevalent around the world today, and I believe slavery to be wrong. I could argue the wrongness of slavery from various viewpoints, in order to convince different people, but, the fact is that I consider it axiomatic that slavery is wrong.

Obviously slaves and slave-owners would have diametrically opposed views, and maybe they could not be trusted for a judgement of right or wrong. I however am not directly affected (except that my standard of living would drop slightly if slavery were eradicated) so, could it be said that my anti-slavery stance is based on objective standards of right and wrong?

[Pendragon]

1) Do people ever do somthing unless they feel they are justified/in the right?
:DGoing all the way back here, not to counter Wiff's excellent points, but to add another to them: There is such a thing called "impulse." For most of us, it is just a passing desire, something like this scenario:

Your best friend is showing you his new car, which is really a hot ride. You know you cannot afford one like it, but you want it anyway. Then reason takes over, and you go on about your life.

A person who cannot control impulse is not going to just walk away on go on with his/her life. They will get that car by whatever means possible. Do they feel that they are justified is where we reach a gray area. Many may fell that they are entitled to whatever they want. Others may know that it is wrong to steal or kill someone for their car, but impulse is in control now. They may both regret it later. But, hey, they got the car of their dreams
:nod:

[higley]

There's two concepts of right and wrong. One: what an individual believes. Two: what actually is right or wrong. I don't think that humans will ever get the second one while this earth goes round, so in the meantime we're stuck with the first.

Failure to objectively distinguish a clear right or a clear wrong does not mean that the basic concept doesn't exist. We just don't see it. Or, we ignore it ;)

[kilted exile]

There's two concepts of right and wrong. One: what an individual believes. Two: what actually is right or wrong. I don't think that humans will ever get the second one while this earth goes round, so in the meantime we're stuck with the first.

Failure to objectively distinguish a clear right or a clear wrong does not mean that the basic concept doesn't exist. We just don't see it. Or, we ignore it ;)

This is interesting. Do you not think there could be mitigating circumstances for most things that would normally be considered wrong, which may make them acceptable in the situation?

[higley]

This is interesting. Do you not think there could be mitigating circumstances for most things that would normally be considered wrong, which may make them acceptable in the situation?

I think that some mitigating circumstances exist within an individual's ideals (and others who agree with him), which fits into my first concept. I hate to bring up dictators such as Stalin and Hitler, because even thinking about them disgusts me. But of course they felt that their genocidal rampagings were justified by circumstances or vindicated by personal feelings. But you have to look at those circumstances, those personal feelings. Their "justification" came from paranoia and hatred, which corrupt deeply and thoroughly. By corrupt I mean it warped their view of right and wrong. Therefore what they did could never be considered right because something cannot be right when its justification is based on a corrupted foundation of thought.

Some mitigating circumstances are physical, such as personal endangerment. There is a difference now because the decision is now objective. Killing is acceptable in either self-defense or in the defense of another person in danger when the situation is so extreme that it comes to either kill or be killed. So you're right that sometimes circumstances change things.

I hope what I said makes sense. I'm not very eloquent. I get the idea in my mind, but I stumble when trying to express it. It takes me twenty minutes to write something like this because I have to search for the words, and then I start to argue with myself as I'm writing them...:p

[kilted exile]

** Warning: The opinions and ideas portrayed in this post do not necessarilly reflect the beliefs of the poster**



I think that some mitigating circumstances exist within an individual's ideals (and others who agree with him), which fits into my first concept. I hate to bring up dictators such as Stalin and Hitler, because even thinking about them disgusts me. But of course they felt that their genocidal rampagings were justified by circumstances or vindicated by personal feelings. But you have to look at those circumstances, those personal feelings. Their "justification" came from paranoia and hatred, which corrupt deeply and thoroughly. By corrupt I mean it warped their view of right and wrong. Therefore what they did could never be considered right because something cannot be right when its justification is based on a corrupted foundation of thought.

Yes, the actions of various "leaders" throughout history fall into the category of "deserving to hang from a meat hook". I wonder though about the people who had to carry out those actions - do they deserve some justification because of what would happen to them if they did not follow the orders they were given?


Some mitigating circumstances are physical, such as personal endangerment. There is a difference now because the decision is now objective. Killing is acceptable in either self-defense or in the defense of another person in danger when the situation is so extreme that it comes to either kill or be killed. So you're right that sometimes circumstances change things.


Completely agree, it is possible that even things like drunk driving may have circumstances which if not excusing the action entirely, may go some way to mitigating it.


I hope what I said makes sense. I'm not very eloquent. I get the idea in my mind, but I stumble when trying to express it. It takes me twenty minutes to write something like this because I have to search for the words, and then I start to argue with myself as I'm writing them...:p

No need to worry about that.......my ramblings are usually the most non-sensical around.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

be[/B] a right or wrong??

#1: Yes. People do things because they do have a justification for whatever that they are doing.

#2: "Right" and "Wrong" can be both subjective and/or objective. It depends on who you are, what you're doing, and why you're doing what you do. If you preach about what's "Right" and/or "Wrong", it is then objective. If you live life not knowing the difference between "Right" and/or "Wrong", but just living life and making decision by what you feel is "Good", it is then subjective.

#3: There can be a "Right" and/or "Wrong" because you are the one who creates it. For example, the U.S., the people created what it is that is "Right" and/or "Wrong". In the U.S., the system has laws, numerous in numbers, that regulates what and/or how you do things. "Right" and/or "Wrong" is what the system base the laws on. Whatever it is that you do, the decision comes to whether what you did is "Right" or "Wrong" and after the decision is made, the consequences comes. Judgement would be another word for it.

*Getting Low On Weed*

Final Thoughts: Unfortunately, I'm low on "supply" to be able to continue on with my thoughts on this subject. I might possibly be back for another bite at this.

[ghideon]

:alien:
Here is my rather convaluted question(s) I'll split it into parts it might make it more understandable.
1) Do people ever do somthing unless they feel they are justified/in the right?2) Is right and wrong subjective or objective?
3) and in that case How can thier even be a right or wrong??


OK. For what it's worth these are my thoughts: I think in philosophical matters it pays to go very slowly and in that light let me first state that 1) people do act. Human beings are capable of making decisions and acting based on those choices in ways that are not defined by their instincts. We use our sense organs to take in information about the world around us and our central nervous system then relays this information to our brain where a unbelievably complex process takes place and the sense data is turned into information. We then use that information and make choices and then act.

Now another key in terms of philosophical discussions is that every single concept, word, idea,term,is based on other words,thoughts,assumptions,perspectives and this goes on and on. This means that it is quite difficult to develop final and absolute observations that can never be challenged, broken apart and argued against.
Ken Wilber, a prominent intellectual in the United States, has said that everyone is looking for experts who they can listen to, agree with completely and thus gain an absolute basis from which to live. Some people use Freud or Marx or Chirst or Mao and others read Dawkins and say they are devout atheists. Wilber says that the truth is...well...the truth is that most observations are true...but only from a certain perspective. It does not make sense to look for truths that will be valid from every single perspective and that can not be challenged and will never be found false or incomplete.

I will take on your questions but not in the order presented. You ask how there can even be a right or wrong if everything a person does seems justified for that person.
But this is where Wilber and his belief that everything depends on the perspective you are coming from. If we are looking at this from a purely philosophical plane then perhaps there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong". I do not believe that moral terms have an objective reality that exists independent of human thought. From a purely objective standpoint things simply are and that is all and the meaning that we give to the universe is just that...something we give to the world.
But I think you are asking questions from a different place. I think that you are basically asking what does it mean to live in a universe where concepts are not really the granite hard rock of absolute that we yearn for and often believe we must have inorder to, if not survive, then live rationally and reasonably.
How can anyone live in a world where truth itself may not actually exist? That is one of the core concepts of modernist and post-modern thought from Sartre to Derrida to Focault. Relativism and subjectivity are very troubling concepts because they throw everything into a huge unseemly mess. If I want to get a good dose of this mess I can read Pynchon or Joyce or even One Hundred Years of Solitude by Marquez.
I want to wake up to a world that makes sense and where people will treat each other well. And I do believe that a person always acts according to their best assessment of their own needs and the current situation that they are in. So in that sense each person feels that what they are doing had to be done. Obviously if it did not have to be done then they would not have done it. And so on an individual level nobody deserves to be punished for what they did or did not do. Every person needs to be understood not only from the outside in terms of the consequences of their acts but also from the inside in terms of what was going on for them when they acted. We are much better at the former and not so good at the latter. And since this is a literature site I will finish this with a paen to the art of the muse.

In many ways I think fiction is closer to fact because there is little pretense. Ofcourse a novel is subjective. But that is where the treasure sits. We learn about the human condition by being able to feel what it is like for a given character to live. A lit teacher once told me that if you read alot and learn to read with depth then you can not remain a biggot. You learn to, if not love, then at least understand. But how to read with depth...another topic....

[Nightshade]

** Warning: The opinions and ideas portrayed in this post do not necessarilly reflect the beliefs of the poster**


without readinga anthing else....well I have read the rest but I want to think before I answer I just want to say that is a Houdini clause if I ever did see one :nod:

[kilted exile]

without readinga anthing else....well I have read the rest but I want to think before I answer I just want to say that is a Houdini clause if I ever did see one :nod:

yeah, but they come in useful.......

[alhara]

I think people totally do things they don’t think but in fact know are wrong. I don’t mean dr. evil crazies and psychos. They (slashers) believe what they are doing is good more than people who actually do good. When you are forced to do something or convince your self to do something wrong you do something you think is wrong because in back of your mind there is the voice of reason screaming but the situation makes you feel like you had to do it. When you hit your brother when your five and your mom ask you why and you said he made me do it you don’t really believe that he or she made you hit them. You know you screwed up and want to get out of trouble, justification comes later and and when you have to justify something to your self, you are aware of it. You can feel justified and then you can twist circumstances later of so that in your mind your are justified but that situation will never really feel right, if we did everything knowing we were right or feeling justified guilt wouldn’t exist.

The second question is easier. Granted the first stament is true that we all think what we are doing is right when we do it then since we know understand what motivates people to do what you or I may think is wrong than all is forgiven in the magic of understanding right? One understanding is not forgiveness, and two forgiveness doesn’t unmake anything. I can forgive the man who killed my father ( no one actually did that it’s hypothetical) but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t go to prison or that he didn’t do it and it is forgotten. The most important part of forgive and forget is the forget. The other dude is right we are individuals and we all perceive things as right and wrong based on a personal standard but know that each person has this standard and that there is no real collative view does NOT nullify that fact that we have this standard. We have every right to judge and no right to do anything about it. That doesn’t mean we stop judging people. Sure every right and wrong in each persons mind is different but it still exist you can’t Write it off because we don’t all agree.

[Ha lelu Yah']

Nightshade,

Let me begin by saying that philosophy is not my forte. As a result there is a very real possibility that I do not understand what you are asking and why, but since you put it where you put it, please allow me to reply from that point of view.

More than 2700 years ago the prophet Isaiah noted a human tendency that may be pertinent to what you are asking:
Woe to those who are saying that good is bad and bad is good, those who are putting darkness for light and light for darkness, those who are putting bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes and discreet even in front of their own faces! Though stated differently he confirms the point you seem to be making in your question, “1) Do people ever do somthing unless they feel they are justified/in the right?” In pointing out the obvious cause for such actions he partially answers your question. Partial answer? Yes, it is a partial answer because there are also an ever increasing number of people that are willing/wanting to do things specifically because they know/feel that they are wrong. Please note the apostle Paul’s words describing some men of his time that is also an accurate description of many in our time:
And just as they did not approve of holding God in accurate knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting, 29 filled as they were with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malicious disposition, being whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, self-assuming, inventors of injurious things, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them but also consent with those practicing them.” And now you have the complete answer. Yes there are those that do the things they do while justifying what they do based on their own feelings, “if it feels good do it,” while there is an ever increasing number of others that do the things they do because they “Just Do It!”

Deciding for our self the question of right and wrong or good and evil has been The Question since the garden of Eden and your second question reflects that on-going debate. Because we have free will each one must decide the answer for himself. The only thing forced upon us is in this situation is the undeniable, inescapable universal principle the apostle Paul states so well:
Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap; 8 because he who is sowing with a view to his flesh will reap corruption from his flesh, but he who is sowing with a view to the spirit will reap everlasting life from the spirit. 9 So let us not give up in doing what is fine, for in due season we shall reap if we do not tire out. 10 Really, then, as long as we have time favorable for it, let us work what is good toward all, but especially toward those related to [us] in the faith. Because ‘reaping what you sow’ is an inescapable universal principle it leads to definite answers/conclusions in the minds and hearts of many regarding your third question.

Speaking only for myself, I say there definitely is a “right” and a “wrong” and either can be objectively shown. Beyond my own personal opinion there is a time-proven standard of right/wrong that I can point you to that has been producing good/evil fruit for thousands of years, if you care to know more.

.

[Redzeppelin]

"There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue, there's just things people do. There's some things I wish they wouldn't do and some things I wish they'd do a bit more, but that's all any man's got a right to say."
-Steinbeck

Man, I'm glad I memorized that quote.

It's a good one - but I don't believe Steinbeck is alluding to the non-existence of "right" and "wrong" here. Jim Casey's spritual journey is beginning when he makes this comment. He is a man who is leaving behind a "legalistic" vision of God (a bean-counter who is tabulating good and bad behaviors) and heading towards a more comprehensive vision of God - God who is more concerned with the human heart and what goes on inside it than in behavior (note that I'm not saying behavior doesn't matter, but that it is not - in and of itself - the standard by which God examines us). St. Abelard once said (roughly paraphrased) that "God looks upon intention of an act more than the action - it is the intention that gives praise or blame to an action." (Aristotle also mirrord this idea in The Rhetoric: "The intention makes the crime.") Jim Casey is not rejecting the existence of "right" and "wrong" - he's coming into a more spiritual understanding of the two.

Enough literary criticism...

If right/wrong are totally subjective (thanks, Post-Modernism), then we are in deep trouble. Without a "higher moral law" outside of human invention, we become victims of our own human nature. As well, without a standard of right/wrong, we now have no justification to condemn other moral standards that conflict with out own - we don't get to criticize orthodox Islam's treatment of women, the slaughter in Darfur, genital mutilation of young girls in 3rd world countries and a host of other "evils" because there is no "frame" standard that exists beyond our "smaller" moral boundaries. You can't tell another person or society they're wrong unless both parties acknowledge the existence of a moral framework beyond our own personal/communal beliefs.

Granted - what is "right" and "wrong" may not always be a hard and fast rule, but we can't throw objective morality out the window because that ultimately leads to chaos and anarchy. To (roughly) quote Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov: "If God does not exist (i.e. objective morality), then everything is permitted."

Yikes.

[Whifflingpin]

"As well, without a standard of right/wrong, we now have no justification to condemn other moral standards that conflict with out own - we don't get to criticize orthodox Islam's treatment of women, the slaughter in Darfur, genital mutilation of young girls in 3rd world countries and a host of other "evils" because there is no "frame" standard that exists beyond our "smaller" moral boundaries. You can't tell another person or society they're wrong unless both parties acknowledge the existence of a moral framework beyond our own personal/communal beliefs."

Maybe, then, we could start removing the beam from our own eye, before pointing out the mote in the eye of our neighbours.

[mtpspur]

Having avoided this particular post for awhile daunted by the well thought out reasonings I decided to weigh in speaking only for myself.

Pretty much all my decisions are based on what I perceive to the best/right course of action AND THEN selfishness starts to kick in competiton with the survival instincts. Christmas shop for others or pay for that Phantom Stranger #4 with the cool early Neal Adams cover instead. Guess what now sits in the house. Justification I had just covered $200 of the long suffering wife's bills--one of them a major bone of contention because if she had asked me first I would have said "Thanks but no thanks" and her monthly bill would be cut in half and after kicking and screaming for awhile maybe cell phones aren't the spawn of the devil--got rid of the home phone and the telemarketers.

Where was I going with this? Even I'm not sure. Right/wrong//good/evil--easy to say in the eye of the beholder but how about the BEHELDED. Though not a great fan of Star Trek one of my favorites was the episode where Spock renounces true love for the 'man on the bridge' that he owes a duty too which pretty much summed up my Air Force days--work before family. The joke goes in the military that if Uncle Sam wanted you to have a family he would have issued you one. So get back to work.

Over the years I've found comfort in the Bible for guidance on the important issues. If you know yourself well you'll be glad of a God that knows you better (and loves you anyway).

[Nightshade]

You know its happened again I start somthing and then Im way out of my depth within a few posts :rolleyes:

If right/wrong are totally subjective (thanks, Post-Modernism), then we are in deep trouble. Without a "higher moral law" outside of human invention, we become victims of our own human nature. As well, without a standard of right/wrong, we now have no justification to condemn other moral standards that conflict with out own - we don't get to criticize orthodox Islam's treatment of women, the slaughter in Darfur, genital mutilation of young girls in 3rd world countries and a host of other "evils" because there is no "frame" standard that exists beyond our "smaller" moral boundaries. You can't tell another person or society they're wrong unless both parties acknowledge the existence of a moral framework beyond our own personal/communal beliefs.
But I think Thats exactly my point we, no one has a right to critisie,~~~trying to think of an example here thats is realitivley safe~~~ Ok Ill go with female circumsition since I dont hold with it and know very little about it. Its like this the peoplel who do it presumably dont do it for the joy of it, they do it becasue they belive that a igher moral/cultural frame work requires it of them. Now who is to say they are wrong? Us How can we when its not our framework we dont understand enough to critisie, but I suppose my point was if everyone can make thier own up, I did mean right and wrong without the inclusion of God into the question to begin with , then surley they dont exsist. And even with the exsistance of God if we only know right from wrong becasue we are told then thats another example of made rules and right and wrong do not objectivley exsist.
You follow?

[Redzeppelin]

Maybe, then, we could start removing the beam from our own eye, before pointing out the mote in the eye of our neighbours. - Whifflingpin

But I think Thats exactly my point we, no one has a right to critisie - Nightshade

OK, gentlemen/ladies, but I believe your positions lead to some problems. First - I get the reference to Matt 7:3, and yes: making a moral judgment must be accompanied by a realistic assessment of one's self and community. But Christ was not saying "don't make moral judgments" - He was reminding us to maintain our humility in making those judgments, to have conducted our own moral inventory before making moral judgments. Fine - but if evil is being perpetrated, I'm not obligated to become "perfect" in my own behavior/morality before I can act.

Second, Nightshade's comment (a common one) ultimately creates a problem because, eventually, a situation or set of circumstances could be presented that Nightshade would say "well, no, that's not right." But by the comments you made, that comment can really never be made. And notice that you chose of my three options the one you least understood. If you do a bit of research on female "circumcision" or "genital mutilation" you might find a problem with not criticising the practice. What about Hitler? What about Darfur? What about active euthanasia which Princeton ethics chair Pete Singer has argued in favor of? What about NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) and its belief that pedophilia is ok? Who are we to criticise? Well, without an objective standard of morality, you are (chillingly) right - we have no right. And this is a comforting view? Please don't tell me that every cultural practice the world around is "OK" - because the minute you say "no, that's not ok" you have made a discrimination between "right" and "wrong," "good" and "evil." Which is, ultimately, a moral judgment.

How can people talk about "right" and "wrong" at all, in any context, if these terms are all self/community defined? That vision creates a world where the weak are victimized while the strong sit back and say "wrong - what wrong? It's all relative, don't ya know?" Could you sit around in 1943 and say so while Hitler is enacting the Final Solution?

Finally, if you grant that God exists and is who He claims to be (omniscient, omnipotent - and a God of Love) then the assumption is that His judgment is correct because God is perfect - therefore his judgment is perfect. And, tell me - what's so wrong with His established "rules" for behavior? What bad things happen in a society where people don't murder, don't steal, don't sleep with each other's wives and respect their elders? Where you are taught to "love your enemies," take care of the poor and stand up for the weak?

[x894565256]

I will say this, in an effort to convey a lot more thoughts than i really understand, and in an effort to make the world a little better.

All actions taken with an attitude of love, not romantic love, but love that says "I value you, intrinsically, and want to work to improve whatever is around you" are good actions.
All actions taken outside of love are misguided, and probably futile or detrimental.

[Whifflingpin]

My problem with the position that you, Redzeppelin, were maintaining is that you semed to be saying that the purpose of an objective moral framework is to enable us to criticize others. It is not. Were there such a thing as an objective moral framework, then "we" would be condemned under its terms as much as "they."

"what's so wrong with His established "rules" for behavior?"
Two things are wrong. One is that no-one knows what His rules might be. Two is that those who claim to know are generally setting out their own ideas of what those rules ought to be - conveniently condemning faults that they themselves do not have.

[subterranean]

"As well, without a standard of right/wrong, we now have no justification to condemn other moral standards that conflict with out own - we don't get to criticize orthodox Islam's treatment of women, the slaughter in Darfur, genital mutilation of young girls in 3rd world countries and a host of other "evils" because there is no "frame" standard that exists beyond our "smaller" moral boundaries. You can't tell another person or society they're wrong unless both parties acknowledge the existence of a moral framework beyond our own personal/communal beliefs."

Maybe, then, we could start removing the beam from our own eye, before pointing out the mote in the eye of our neighbours.


I once read something about cultural relativism when I was in college and taking the class Introduction to Anthropology (this principle has its roots in Kant's thought about human inability of direct, unmediated knowledge of the world). I somewhat agree in the basic principle that we should see people's action/opinion/beliefs in the framework of their cultural values/norms. This stand will helps us to not judging others using our own set of values, which may different from theirs and thus, also help to prevent conflict. But I personally will face a dilemma when say, I watch a documentary about women from certain ethnic group don't get education because they have to stay home, working in the fields and do house works. And that situation is justified by their culture. I'd disagree and say (to my self) that those women should fight for their right for proper education. But I can't come to them and say that they need to fight for their rights, because in reality the women may not complaint about their situation and they may not think that education is necessary for them. They can be happy with what they have and do and having outsiders telling them to change their way of living which have been practiced for hundred of years.

[Redzeppelin]

My problem with the position that you, Redzeppelin, were maintaining is that you semed to be saying that the purpose of an objective moral framework is to enable us to criticize others. It is not. Were there such a thing as an objective moral framework, then "we" would be condemned under its terms as much as "they."

OK - perhaps my language was inaccurate. I would emphatically not maintain that objective morality is for "criticizing others." An objective moral framework allows us to decide what behaviors are/are not appropriate - in both "our" culture and "theirs." And you are correct: the purpose of an objective morality puts us all under its umbrella - so yes: we are to be judged by the same criteria - hence the allusion you made to Christ's "eye" analogy: the "mote" in our neighbor's eye and the "log" in our own are defined by the same objective morality; I just need to make sure that I'm in accordance with the objective morality that I'm attempting to judge in someone else - BUT: if that morality has been "set" by culture instead of a transcendant being, then your point is correct: we're just "loading the deck" in our favor and imposing our views on someone else. An objective moral framework allows us to evaluate cultural practices ("ours" and "theirs") in the same light.


"what's so wrong with His established "rules" for behavior?"Two things are wrong. One is that no-one knows what His rules might be. Two is that those who claim to know are generally setting out their own ideas of what those rules ought to be - conveniently condemning faults that they themselves do not have.


Huh? The Bible establishes His "rules" (though I prefer "guidelines" because living by those guidelines generally creates a life that is worth living - a life in service to others and personal responsibility for one's self.) I won't deny that there are those Christians who have done their analytical work incorrectly in deciding to interpret God's guidelines to the world, but that does not invalidate the value of God's laws. Just because some of those who claim the name of "Christian" come across as unfairly critical and judgmental does not universally condemn Christianity - anymore than suicide bombers condemn all of Islam (and heaven help the poster who would casually label Islam as Christianity often seems to be labeled). I'm always surprised how easily it seems that people wish to stereotype Christianity by its worst elements - doing so to just about any other group today would be called "intolerant." Every group - whether racial, religious or gender based - has radicals, zealots and fringe elements that do not speak for all. Real Christians acknowlegde that they are sinners, like everybody else, and that we are in need of forgiveness, just like the rest of humanity. In fact, C.S. Lewis once wrote in Mere Christianity that the self-righteous church matron who looked down her nose on sinners was actually "closer to hell" than the prostitute - for the prostitute would never lose sight of her "need" of redemption. I agree with Lewis. In fact, Christ Himself saved His most devastating criticisms for the "religious authorities" of His day who were guilty of the very criticisms you place on mainstream Christianity.

[ghideon]

I will say this, in an effort to convey a lot more thoughts than i really understand, and in an effort to make the world a little better.

All actions taken with an attitude of love, not romantic love, but love that says "I value you, intrinsically, and want to work to improve whatever is around you" are good actions.
All actions taken outside of love are misguided, and probably futile or detrimental.

I want to express my appreciation for the author of the above post. Because of the Ivory Tower arrogant discourse discussions about love are considered simplistic, New Agey,not intellectual. I disagree.
There are profound axioms, assumptions underlying the above statement. First, it makes a distinction between romantic love(the love that we are saturated with from every TV,movie,magazine,advertisement and on and on)versus love that is actually a simple expression of ones humanity. This distinction is of the greatest importance.

One thing that always troubles me in rather high-brow discussions is, well, what the hell is going on? I mean behind the words and arguments and statements and questions and challenges and positions what are the fundamental motivations?
Too often, I fear, we are talking "at" each other and not "to" or even "with" each other. Martin Buber wrote a historic work called "I and Thou" in which he describes his belief that any relation that is between an "I" and an "other" is essentially alienating. We must work at building relations that are "I" and "Thou" in which it is essentially a subject-subject relationship not subject-object.
Paulo Freire worked on very similar ideas in developing a radically empowering method of teaching literacy to people of the Third World in which those being taught were not just given tasks and lessons as if they were empty glasses needing to be filled by experts but rather they were engaged with the teacher as subject-subject and their concerns,needs,perspectives were a central part of the teaching of reading and writing. Instead of "See Spot run" there were books with sentences like "George pays the rent to the landlord." I do not know enough about his lesson plans to actually do justice in my examples so take mine with a grain of salt and if you want to know more google Pedagogy Of The Oppressed.

Finally, I spent many years working with a community called Re-Evaluation Counseling (R.C.) The organization, like most, had some real problems but the theory that it taught was,imho,brilliant and crucial. The website is rc.org. It is difficult for me to sum up what I learned but one key was the assumption that there is such a thing as a universal human nature. That when one says they are a human they are saying they are born humane. And that we must relearn how to relate to ourselves and each other from that basis and not from the basis that some people are more human (more loving,more lovable,less inteligent,weaker). The differences between individuals,cultures, nations are 99% a function of their environment and conditioning. Men,women,poor people,rich people,blacks,whites are very very very very similar in the most important ways and if someone seems dumb,lazy,weak then that is simply a manifestation of their deep chasm between who they are by nature versus who they have been told they are and treated.
R.C. teaches two things: the art and science of love. And that if I see another person as dumb or weak then I am complicit in their dehumanization and will never be able to actually love,help them.

nuf said for now, hope I did not write too much..I too wonder about my true reasons for writing,using the web...am I actually trying to communicate honestly and openly or do I just get off on listening to myself...hmmmm

I welcome any posts,questions about the above...particularly about RC which, in many places, has a bad rap. A rap that is both deserved and inacurate in important ways.

later,
:yawnb:

[Nightshade]

Ok my turn again, first off the reason I chose the one I knew the least about, is that II know too much about the other ( and have already got on my high horse once this week about this misconceptions of Islam that are held in the west and who is responsible so I didnt feel like doing that again) and Darfur is a war, when wars happen normal judgment ceases because people do dilberatly do things they concider wrong and wouldnt normally do ( like dropping atomic bombs for instance) just proving my point.


Im actually in a hurry but I wanted to do this so whne I get back tonight I ll rember to post

[Whifflingpin]

"Huh? The Bible establishes His "rules" "
You may believe that the Bible establishes God's rules, but there is no reason whatever why those who are neither Jews nor Christians should agree with you.

"I won't deny that there are those Christians who have done their analytical work incorrectly in deciding to interpret God's guidelines to the world,"
Of course you won't deny this - but who are you to decide that Christians who have different views from you have "done their analytical work incorrectly ?" Their views are also based on the Bible, which, far from being the clear word of God, is a collection of writings by inspired humans, from which just about any course of action may (at the whim of the reader) be justified.


"but that does not invalidate the value of God's laws."
No, but it supports my argument that no-one can state what God's laws are.

"very criticisms you place on mainstream Christianity"
I have not criticised mainstream Christianity - only certain aspects of your posts. In particular, I challenge the attitude implied in your posts that you are speaking for God, and that you, or your particular sect of Christians, whatever that might be, are the judge of what is or is not God's law.

.

[Pendragon]

Maybe, then, we could start removing the beam from our own eye, before pointing out the mote in the eye of our neighbours.One of the better points I've seen in this thread. We should also stop "gagging on gnats and then swallowing camels." Paul talked about the "sin that so easily bests us." We often point out this and that that we feel others are wrong in doing. May I ask when God started grading on the Bell Curve? Is one sin worth 2 points and another 4? In our eyes, maybe. But God says "The soul that sins, it shall die." We break dozens of God's Laws every day-- for which we need to ask His forgivness. And we expect Him to do so, even if it's the same old thing, day in day out. But we don't want to show mercy to another, if they disagree with us, they are out! Are we God, to so judge? No. "I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy and whom I will, I harden." Let it alone. Everyone God chooses will make it. Do you think we will live forever in heaven with a buch of people we can't get along with down here? "God is love and he that loveth is born of God. How can you love God whom you have not seen and hate your brother whom you have seen?" :angel:

[Redzeppelin]

Hi there Wifflingpin - I can't respond right now, but I just wanted to take a time out and thank you for your willingness to engage me in discussion - your thoughtful criticisms are welcome, and I hope my postings reflect respect for your opinion ;)

I do believe I've been misunderstood, so I will try to make my points clearer later on if you're willing to entertain them.

Thanks

[Redzeppelin]

You may believe that the Bible establishes God's rules, but there is no reason whatever why those who are neither Jews nor Christians should agree with you.

Well, for a Christian, the Bible is the establishment of God's "rules" (for lack of a better term). I'm not suggesting the Bible should be anyone else's standard here on earth; what I am saying is that - for a Christian - the Bible provides a morality that transcends human creation. No one else has to accept this morality - but it is my example of an objective morality ("objective" because it is not subject to the failings of human nature).



"I won't deny that there are those Christians who have done their analytical work incorrectly in deciding to interpret God's guidelines to the world,"
Of course you won't deny this - but who are you to decide that Christians who have different views from you have "done their analytical work incorrectly ?" Their views are also based on the Bible, which, far from being the clear word of God, is a collection of writings by inspired humans, from which just about any course of action may (at the whim of the reader) be justified.

I think we're arguing on the same side of the coin. When you said

those who claim to know are generally setting out their own ideas of what those rules ought to be - conveniently condemning faults that they themselves do not have.

I interpreted that as an attack (justifiable, by the way) against Christians who use their vision of the objective moral law of God as a weapon of unfair condemnation and judgment (a good example of this atrocious abuse of God's word would be Fred Phelps - the midwest pastor who protests homosexuality with signs that (wrongly) proclaim "God hates fags!"). I think it is fair for me to judge my fellow "Christians" (we are held to the same standard of our objective morality as unbelievers) if their interpretation of God's law is at variance with what the Bible teaches. The Bible clearly teaches that God "hates" sin but "loves" the sinner. I am as free to evaluate Fred Phelps' interpretation of God's word as he is to evaluate mine.

In terms of your final statement


Their views are also based on the Bible, which, far from being the clear word of God, is a collection of writings by inspired humans, from which just about any course of action may (at the whim of the reader) be justified.

this is true if you take things out of context - almost any work of writing (spritual or not) can be manipulated with contextual "cuttings"; however, the Bible is meant to be a unified whole: what it says in one book should be verified/crossreferenced in another. As well, whatever "rules" or guidelines set forth should be consistent with God's character (since laws are reflections of their creators). The fact that Paul tells slaves to "obey your masters" does not imply that God does not have a moral problem with slavery - the fact that "Christians" of the 18-19thC used that text to justify slavery does not mean that's what God meant. The Bible is silent on many issues, but that does not mean that God is indifferent: it means that we have been given certain latitudes in determining right from wrong - but that those determinations should be reflective of God's character - consistency with God's character is the boundary that Christian moral judgments must be made - which is why the abolishionist movement in the US was begun by Christians (if my history memory is correct) - and this was an appropriate decision because the subjugation of human beings that slavery represents is inconsistent with the character of God.



"but that does not invalidate the value of God's laws."
No, but it supports my argument that no-one can state what God's laws are.

Who is doing this? I'm not advocating myself as interpreter of God's law - I'm insisting that it exists in the Bible as Christianity's objective morality.


"very criticisms you place on mainstream Christianity"
I have not criticised mainstream Christianity - only certain aspects of your posts. In particular, I challenge the attitude implied in your posts that you are speaking for God, and that you, or your particular sect of Christians, whatever that might be, are the judge of what is or is not God's law.

I cannot speak for God - His word speaks for itself. Nothing in my post indicates that I think I am "the judge of what is or is not God's law." This thread is attempting, as far as I can tell, to explore the idea of "objective moral values." The only source of "objective moral values" (in Christianity's opinion) is God - because any values established by humanity are subject to humanity's flaws (selfishness, greed, short-sightedness, fear, compromise, etc), which invalidates the ability of the law to adjudicate/moderate a conflict between different cultures because then the law is based on human subjective ideas about "right" and "wrong." I'm only suggesting that God can be the only source of an incorruptible objective morality because its existence transcends human origin.

I think you and I are probably arguing the same thing: if there is no objective morality, then yes - we have no right to judge others because there is no standard that both of us can appeal to to solve our disagreement. Given. But, if you wish to ask about the existence of objective moral values, the only source can be a divine being - because we need a law developed "outside the system" [divine being establishes law for human behavior]: a law developed "inside the system" [humanity creates law to judge human behavior] is prone to the limitations of the system.

[Whifflingpin]

"But, if you wish to ask about the existence of objective moral values, the only source can be a divine being - because we need a law developed "outside the system" [divine being establishes law for human behavior]: a law developed "inside the system" [humanity creates law to judge human behavior] is prone to the limitations of the system."

I think we would agree on some things, but not on others. I happen to believe in God, and believe that He is the source of moral judgement. (Atheists please skip the rest of this paragraph and the next.) I believe His rules are transmitted through the conscience of each individual.

(Individuals write books, which may be helpful to some people and not to others. A book is objective, in that, once written, it exists outside of an individual, but the degree and nature of the guidance obtained from a book is subjective. In particular, a book like the Bible does not provide an objective standard in the way that a car maintenance manual might. )

In practice, moral judgment is subjective, because there are so many other influences that the precise effect of the "still small voice" of conscience is unique for each individual.

However, in oder to live together, we have to agree on some standards of behaviour which have some claim to objectivity. Relying on conscience is effectively anarchy, which would be fine if conscience ruled, but unfortunately it doesn't so it isn't.

So the law has to be developed, for practical purposes, inside the system, as you put it. The nearest thing we have to objective morality is the conventions of the United Nations. These are arrived at by consensus of people from all cultures and societies. Subject, as they are, to the imperfections of all human endeavours, they represent the combined conscience of humanity, which is the nearest that we can get to the Will of God.

So there you have, by human efforts, (divinely inspired, if you happen to believe that,) objective, trans-cultural, standards for condemning slavery, genocide, child mutilation etc.

[Redzeppelin]

I believe His rules are transmitted through the conscience of each individual.

(Individuals write books, which may be helpful to some people and not to others. A book is objective, in that, once written, it exists outside of an individual, but the degree and nature of the guidance obtained from a book is subjective. In particular, a book like the Bible does not provide an objective standard in the way that a car maintenance manual might. )

I think that the problem with this argument is perhaps with our disagreement over the authority of the scriptures. If one believes that the Bible was simply written by human beings and subject to copying errors, personal and cultural bias and such - then yes: it is subjective and has no moral authority beyond that which we attribute to it. BUT: if one believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God ("inspired" in that the men who wrote it were "ghostwriting" the ideas/expressions of God) then the Bible becomes the source of objective morality becasue a divine being was actually the "writer" of the book. My problem with the invalidation of scriptures as the transcendent word of God is that we now have no way of "knowing" Him (relatively speaking) because the Bible is presented as the revelation of God's character - we come to know Him through His word. Invalidating the validity of the Word morphs God into an unknowable "force" as opposed to a God with a personality capable of a loving relationship with His created.


In practice, moral judgment is subjective, because there are so many other influences that the precise effect of the "still small voice" of conscience is unique for each individual.

Right. Ultimately, many situations cannot be nailed down into a sort of "Kant-ian imperative" - where the "right thing to do" is always the same response. However, that "subjective" morality should be guided by the larger framework of an objective morality - otherwise any boundary as to what is "right" and "wrong" in a situation disappears (because not every response can be "right").


However, in oder to live together, we have to agree on some standards of behaviour which have some claim to objectivity. Relying on conscience is effectively anarchy, which would be fine if conscience ruled, but unfortunately it doesn't so it isn't.

I agree with you again.


So the law has to be developed, for practical purposes, inside the system, as you put it. The nearest thing we have to objective morality is the conventions of the United Nations. These are arrived at by consensus of people from all cultures and societies. Subject, as they are, to the imperfections of all human endeavours, they represent the combined conscience of humanity, which is the nearest that we can get to the Will of God.

So there you have, by human efforts, (divinely inspired, if you happen to believe that,) objective, trans-cultural, standards for condemning slavery, genocide, child mutilation etc.


You are correct - and have argued well your points. My response would simply be that - although these "objective" laws do carry some weight, that "weight" only exists through collective agreement; collective agreement is fine if we all agree to agree - but what if (like the current situation with N. Korea [just a political reference! Don't delete this post please!]) you have nations that refuse to go along? Why should they, if the collective agreement includes ideas that their culture (for whatever reason) rejects? Objective morality that comes from without the human "system" allows us to say "we didn't come up with this - an all-knowing, all-powerful being did, and we operate on the idea that this supreme being knows best."

[Whifflingpin]

Whifflingpin: "The nearest thing we have to objective morality is the conventions of the United Nations. These are arrived at by consensus of people from all cultures and societies...So there you have, by human efforts, (divinely inspired, if you happen to believe that,) objective, trans-cultural, standards for condemning slavery, genocide, child mutilation etc."
Redzeppelin: " My response would simply be that - although these "objective" laws do carry some weight, that "weight" only exists through collective agreement; collective agreement is fine if we all agree to agree - but what if ...you have nations that refuse to go along? Why should they, if the collective agreement includes ideas that their culture (for whatever reason) rejects? Objective morality that comes from without the human "system" allows us to say "we didn't come up with this - an all-knowing, all-powerful being did, and we operate on the idea that this supreme being knows best.""

First, a clarification - I referred to the conventions of the UN. These are arrived at after long consideration, generally years, with opportunity for all people to have an input. They represent the standards by which nations agree to abide. I was not referring to resolutions of the UN, which are immediate responses to specific situations.

The distinction is important, but does not affect Redzeppelin's argument, because nations are not compelled to ratify UN conventions. (Britain's government, for instance, took longer than most to ratify the convention on the Rights of the Child, for various technical reasons.)

Redzeppelin, we must simply accept that we disagree on your last argument. I think that individuals may say "I didn't come up with this, God did, and He knows best." Unfortunately there is no generally accepted agreement on whether a supreme being exists, let alone what He may know or intend.

So, while an individual may seek to live his life according to God's will, the argument "It's God's will" can carry no weight from one individual to another, let alone from one nation to another. God's will, if we knew it, would be objective, I grant you that; but any statement of God's will is totally subjective.

The main drawback, as a moral guide, of UN conventions is that, like any law, they primarily address the things that we should not do. Morality must consist of actively doing good, as well as refraining from what is bad. Law may offer a protection within which a fulfilling life could be led, but it would not show anyone how to live such a life. A convention may give descriptions of slavery and grounds for opposing it wherever it may be found. There is no convention that can show the freed slave that it is better to smile at someone than frown at them; it was not a convention that showed Bill Gates that the most satisfying use of money is to give it away.

*** *** ***

Redzeppelin, you said, the "problem with the invalidation of scriptures as the transcendent word of God is that we now have no way of "knowing" Him" Unfortunately, to an unbiassed reader, (you might say "one reading without Faith," perhaps,) the inconsistency within the scriptures demonstrates, internally, that it is not the transcendent word of God, but rather a collection of writings showing Man's quest for God, and, maybe, descriptions of specific encounters with God.

By inconsistency I do not mean the quibbling of one text against another, or the case that there are slightly differing accounts of the same events, from the creation to the crucifixion. I mean that the view given of God is not consistent throughout the books. You are forced to reject some of the views given. There is the Lord of Hosts, in whose name it is permissable to smite Amalekites, Midianites, Jebusites or any other nation, and slaughter priests of Baal or any other religion. And there is the God of many mansions, whose people are those who behave righteously, regardless of ethnic origin or mode of worship, And somewhere in between, a God who does not care about race, but does insist on a particular belief in the benefits of a certain historical occurence. And there are other views, as would be expected from people trying to say, for good or ill, what God means to them in their own circumstances, but not expected from a transcendent God revealing himself to His creation.
The only way to resolve the issue is to start with one's own belief and back-project the belief into the scriptures, judging and interpreting what is written against what one believes (and, I grant you, modifying the belief against what one reads.)


I think that you expect too much of your scriptures, and you underestimate God. Christ's immediate disciples did not come to him because they had read a book, but because He called them, and they recognised the divinity in Him. St. Paul, the writer of more of the bible than any other individual, was not converted to follow Christ by a book, but by a sudden realisation, or revelation. We are not all knocked off our horses by explosions of spiritual light, but as Paul explains in his letter to the Romans - those with a book may learn from a book and use it as their guide, but to those without a book God speaks directly through conscience (Rom II vv11-15.)

[Redzeppelin]

Redzeppelin, we must simply accept that we disagree on your last argument. I think that individuals may say "I didn't come up with this, God did, and He knows best." Unfortunately there is no generally accepted agreement on whether a supreme being exists, let alone what He may know or intend.

So, while an individual may seek to live his life according to God's will, the argument "It's God's will" can carry no weight from one individual to another, let alone from one nation to another. God's will, if we knew it, would be objective, I grant you that; but any statement of God's will is totally subjective.

We probably reached an impasse a few posts ago. My arguments are not meant to imply that those who do not acknowledge the existence/supremacy of God should follow His law; as well, neither am I trying to advocate what I believe God's will to be. I am speaking hypothetically: I am suggesting that the problem with eliminating God creates the problem of relativistic morality. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying anyone has to believe as I do, that they should believe as I do, that they should seriously consider what "God's will" is. I don't expect any of my beliefs as to God's moral laws to "carry any weight" with those who don't believe - I fully expect non-believers to dismiss God and His law. That's fine - no harm, no foul.


The main drawback, as a moral guide, of UN conventions is that, like any law, they primarily address the things that we should not do. Morality must consist of actively doing good, as well as refraining from what is bad. Law may offer a protection within which a fulfilling life could be led, but it would not show anyone how to live such a life. A convention may give descriptions of slavery and grounds for opposing it wherever it may be found. There is no convention that can show the freed slave that it is better to smile at someone than frown at them; it was not a convention that showed Bill Gates that the most satisfying use of money is to give it away.

I agree with you. The advantage of an objective moral law like the Bible - not only does it say "don't do this" it says "you should do this." Again: I'm not asking anybody to accept/follow the Bible - I'm saying that it satisfies the valid point you made.

*** *** ***


Redzeppelin, you said, the "problem with the invalidation of scriptures as the transcendent word of God is that we now have no way of "knowing" Him" Unfortunately, to an unbiassed reader, (you might say "one reading without Faith," perhaps,) the inconsistency within the scriptures demonstrates, internally, that it is not the transcendent word of God, but rather a collection of writings showing Man's quest for God, and, maybe, descriptions of specific encounters with God... I mean that the view given of God is not consistent throughout the books. You are forced to reject some of the views given. The only way to resolve the issue is to start with one's own belief and back-project the belief into the scriptures, judging and interpreting what is written against what one believes (and, I grant you, modifying the belief against what one reads.)

The "inconsistency" of scripture argument is one I've heard before. The "inconsistency" you point out may stem from a preconceived idea as to what kind of being God is or (as many people like to insist) who He should be. Criticisms of the two characters of God presented in the scriptures make the unstated assumption that God is either one (God of Justice - the "Old Testament God") or the other (God of Mercy - the "New Testament God [the one most people like]) - but why can't He be both? You accuse me below of expecting "too much of [my] scriptures," but the description of God that many agnostics and atheists I get is that God can't possibly be like the Bible describes Him - and that criticism is generally based in some idea as to how God should behave Himself. In reality, either vision of God by itself creates an unbalanced and incomplete picture of God. If He is perfect, then He must be both Just and Merciful.



I think that you expect too much of your scriptures, and you underestimate God. Christ's immediate disciples did not come to him because they had read a book, but because He called them, and they recognised the divinity in Him. St. Paul, the writer of more of the bible than any other individual, was not converted to follow Christ by a book, but by a sudden realisation, or revelation. We are not all knocked off our horses by explosions of spiritual light, but as Paul explains in his letter to the Romans - those with a book may learn from a book and use it as their guide, but to those without a book God speaks directly through conscience (Rom II vv11-15.)


How can I expect "too much" from that which I believe is directly from God? 2 Timothy 3:16: "Every scripture was given to us by inspiration from God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives; it straightens us out and helps us do what is right. It is God's way of making us well prepared at every point, fully equipped to do good to everyone."
I'm not asking the world to be converted by the Bible. By itself, it has no such power. The Bible "speaks" to a person when that person - through the influence of God/Holy Spirit - seeks what the Bible has to offer. People don't seek answers in the Bible unless God is working within them. I simply advocate that the advantage to belief in the existence of God and the validity of His Word solves the problem of subjective morality (at least to a large extent).

Honestly, I enjoy your discussion - you're a sharp thinker. I do feel, though, that we're going in circles because I'm not asking atheists to believe my position - I'm simply saying why I think my position is beneficial.

[Whifflingpin]

Hi Redzeppelin - as you say we are probably at an impasse, or an agreement, I'm not sure which.

It ought to be time to stop, but I will just refer back to my comment about the conflicting ideas of God. You said "the Bible is presented as the revelation of God's character." My argument is that there are, within the Bible, descriptions of God that are mutually incompatible. I did not say or mean merely that they differ from my view of God, but that they cannot be held together.

I have no difficulty with any apparent paradox between a just God and a merciful one, and those were not differences that I mentioned. I have no quarrel with the God's justice as described by Amos or Hosea or Habakkuk, from what I remember without checking.

But the God presented in a large part of the Old Testament is neither just nor merciful - he is the tribal god of the Hebrews. There was no question of justice in the slaughter of the people who inhabited Palestine before the Hebrew tribes returned from Egypt. It was simply that the Hebrews wanted the land, and took it. From Joshua to Ezra, the Creator of all is presented as the chief warrior of a faction.

Nor is there any justice in the interpretation of the "jealousy" of God that led to the slaughter of priests and worshippers of other religions - (think about it, would you condone the slaughter of Hindus today? No, and it was no more just then than it is now.)

Justice and mercy are complementary. Exclusivity and universality are contradictory.

Now, it makes complete sense for human tribes to believe then, as since, that God was their help against their enemies, and to describe him as such in their writings. But the creator and judge of all men would not describe himself in those terms.

.

[x894565256]

ok whiff
here's the theology behind it
Prior to Christ:
He was the god of the Hebrews, and solely the Hebrews.
Christ came, died, and when Christ died the curtain that kept the holiest place in the temple separate from the world was torn, top to bottom.
This symbolizes that Yahweh was no longer the god of the Hebrews, but had become God for the whole world.
This creates a change.
Essentially those who were Gentiles were not really to be considered. They were headed for judgement, end of story.
But I personally would say that after Christ's death, those who are not Christians are more valuable in life than Christians are, as they are unforgiven.
I really honestly believe that morality is the biggest crock ever.
The 10 Commandments can be broken down like this: Love God, Love People.
And Jesus said it. And Jesus said that whatever you do for "the least of these" you do for him, so I'd really just say Love people as much as you can all the time, and you'll be doing something right.

[Redzeppelin]

so I'd really just say Love people as much as you can all the time, and you'll be doing something right.


Fine - as long as we agree on what "love" means, then this should be simple, right? ;)

[IamMissingaLink]

My morality is thus: I just don't do what hurts other people and don't allow myself to experience what hurts me. Simple.

[Redzeppelin]

My morality is thus: I just don't do what hurts other people and don't allow myself to experience what hurts me. Simple.

In general, I agree with this idea - but the word "hurt" is related to my previous post on "love." Isn't sometimes a part of loving someone "hurting" them? (Note: there is a big difference between "hurting" someone and "harming" them - "harming" someone is bad.) In terms of raising children, isn't it necessary to "hurt" them on occasion by allowing them to experience the consequences of their wrong acions? And isn't the same true for other relationships? If I truly love my friend, and my friend intends to take his life, do I love him if I allow him to do what he claims he wishes to do? Or do I "hurt" him by calling the authorities and getting him the emotional counseling he needs?

This is what I meant by my comment on "love."

[IamMissingaLink]

I apologise in advance if my reasoning, or lack thereof, is overly-simplistic.


In terms of raising children, isn't it necessary to "hurt" them on occasion by allowing them to experience the consequences of their wrong acions?


Well, as far as a child experiencing consequences of wrong actions - if that means dishing out punishment then i don't really think that is necessary. But I agree with allowing to experience natural consequence of actions in order to take responsibility.


If I truly love my friend, and my friend intends to take his life, do I love him if I allow him to do what he claims he wishes to do? Or do I "hurt" him by calling the authorities and getting him the emotional counseling he needs?

Preservation of life has to come first, taking of life is the biggest 'hurt,'

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Dang...What happen in this thread...? Am I a little late for the discussion or what...?

[Redzeppelin]

Dang...What happen in this thread...? Am I a little late for the discussion or what...?

Not at all. We were talking about objective morality, and a comment was made above that "loving" each other is the basis of morality. The question, of course, arises as to what is the "loving" thing to do? Is the "loving" thing always an obvious choice?

Sometimes love involves pain. I'm fine with basing morality on love, as long as we're clear on what love really means.